FRAMEWORK FOR MORAL DECISION MAKING - A. Flores

Velasquez etal mentions five approaches to deal with moral issues. The utilitarian approach, Immanuel Kant’s individual rights, fair or justice approach, common good approach, and the virtue approach. The utilitarian approach stems for John Stuart Mills’ view of paternalism – choose (for someone) the best action out of many for the right decision. Kant’s approach is personal choice. The third approach is to avoid discrimination or favoritism when making a choice. The common-good is to make a decision to benefit the entire community. The last approach is the most religious conscious of all the approaches.

Here is what I think. We cannot approach an ethical decision without choosing a part from all five approaches mentioned. I have always believed in Kant’s view; the inalienable right to choose self-determination. No matter how evil the outcome seems to be, humankind must have the right to choose for themselves. If a person chooses to abort a fetus, commit rape, cannibalism, if it is their kuleana (business) - it is their right. If their action is illegal, with their own decision comes penalty, still they have the right to choose their own course. Who are we to infringe on their rights, what they believe must be right. Is the practice of marijuana smoking for the Rastafarian’s religious purpose unethical? Were the headhunting practices of the mountainous people of the Philippines (presenting a severed head to the bride’s family) unethical? Must we encroach on people’s individuals rights?

As a hypocrite, I will say, yes – paternalism has its place. I always trample on my children’s individual right. I shamelessly preach my utmost volition for Kant’s theory, however, discard this belief so I can paternalistically be able to lead them in the “proper path.” Supposedly, I have experience that they should take in consideration - paternalistic suggestions to trample on their individual right for self-choice.

Going back to the thought of not being able to make an ethical decision without including all approaches, here is my reasons why think this way.
Take the case for the use of blood transfusion. If a persons religious belief is to abstain from blood (take the meaning of “abstain” at face value), even under the most dire medical situation, the person will refuse blood transfusion. A person may religiously believe that this life is momentary – a better and permanent afterlife is possible if he/she is faithful to all the laws of his/her belief. Moreover, if one of the tenets is to abstain from blood, the person will abstain from blood even if it means death. Therefore, the person has every right to choose for herself ethically not to have blood transfusion even if it means death because that is her faith. That faith guides her inalienable right.

However, this ingrained belief in no blood transfusions is a paternalistic belief given or dictated to her by her religion. “God will not grant you everlasting life,” the church says, “if you violate the law on blood.” So here, two approaches are claimed in order to choose an ethical choice. The virtue approach also applies since is she is now making to her pre-disposed moral principles – do not violate God’s law. The common good approach could be reasoned that by refusing blood transfusion and if the medical emergency becomes successful, medical care will change their practices and the reliance for blood transfusion will be reduced. Thus, the whole healthcare industry will be revamped.

I could make claim that choosing or accepting no blood is a fair- judgment but a greater question comes to mind. What if she is pregnant, and if she does not choose a transfusion and she kills herself and her baby? Would this not violate the justice of fairness approach, in the unborn child’s perspective?

Therefore, in everything, it is not easy to use just a single approach in order to make an ethical decision. Using a multi-approach, a synthesis of several approaches sometimes is the best approach to make an ethical decision.